Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Second Renewed Motion for Leave to Assert Claim for Punitive Damages judgment on basis of facts established without dispute). Where the nonmoving party fails to present evidence rebutting the motion for summary judgment and there is no genuine issue of material fact, then entry of judgment is proper as a matter of law. See Davis v. Hathaway, 408 So. 2d 688, 689 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 1982); see also Holl, 191 So. 2d at 43. Faced with these well-established legal principles, Epstein voluntarily dismissed his claims against Edwards on the eve of the hearing on Edwards Motion for Summary Judgment. B. Epstein’s Claim Regarding Edwards Had Absolutely No Factual Basis. oowezee < ~~ This was not a complicated case: for granting summary judgment: ‘To: the-contrary,the ---~ ~ “oomee-uncontested record clearly established-that~each and-every- one ~ofEpstein’s-claims against ~ 9°. Edwards lacked any merit whatsoever.' I. Epstein’s allegations regarding Edwards’ involvement in Rothstein’s “Ponzi Scheme” were unsupported and unsupportable because Edwards was simply 2 pe - ° -* notinvolved in any such scheme.** -- ~ - : a. Edwards Had No Involvement in the Ponzi Scheme. The bulk of Epstein’s claims against Edwards hinged on the premise that Edwards was involved in a Ponzi scheme run by Scott Rothstein. Broad allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Edwards were scattered willy-nilly throughout the complaint. None of the allegations provided any substance as to how Edwards actually assisted the Ponzi scheme, and allegations that he “knew or should have known” of its existence are based upon an impermissible pyramiding of inferences. In any event, these allegations all fail for one straightforward reason: ' The dismissal of Epstein’s claims against Edwards did not affect Epstein’s claims against Scott Rothstein. Epstein had already chosen to dismiss all of his claims against my the only other defendant named in the suit. HOUSE